JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - Heard Interim application (L) No.14248 of 2022.

2. By the present Interim application, the applicant / Plaintiff has prayed for multiple reliefs which are at paragraph No. 28 of the application. an urgent application is made on the ground that the detained goods (hereinafter referred to as the "present cargo") are perishable and should be released as their value is deteriorating on a daily basis.

3. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for seeking a declaration that detention of the present cargo (ascorbic acid - Vitamin C - 20 MT) by Defendant No.2 is without authority of law; for release of the cargo or for maintenance of the cargo in the Defendant's possession until it is handed over to the Plaintiff without payment of detention or demurrages charges / ground rent and / or penalty. The Plaintiff also seeks damages of Rs.10,00,000/- suffered by the Plaintiff due to wrongful detention and also in the alternative seeks a money decree of Rs.1,23,89,909/- in the nature of damages suffered by the Plaintiff arising out of wrongful detention.

4. The reason for hearing the Interim application during the vacation arose because the cargo in question imported by the Plaintiff is ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), whose strength is reducing with each passing day. The Plaintiff has argued that the Defendant No.2 is levying demurrages charges of approx. Rs.10,000/- per day and despite the Plaintiff having paid the full freight charges of the detained goods, the same are withheld by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the ground of claiming a lien over the cargo. Hence the urgency.

5. It will be apposite to briefly state such of the relevant facts which are necessary to hear the Interim application.

5.1. Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company in India; Defendant No.1 is a Danish Company and is one of the largest container shipping line and vessel operator in the world. Defendant No.2 is a Private Limited Company in India and is a subsidiary of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.5 is a company incorporated in China.

TRaNSaCTION NO: 1 : 2020

5.2. In October 2020, Plaintiff booked the Defendant No.2 as its shipping line for exporting certain chemicals to its customer based in Beirut, Lebanon. On receiving the quotation from Defendant No.2, Plaintiff booked a shipment of two containers containing 264 drums (42.240 MT) of acetone for shipping the same to Beirut. Plaintiff paid the requisite freight charges; sanctions were obtained and Defendant No.2 issued a Bill of Lading dated 03.12.2020. The value of the cargo was Rs.38,92,572/- which was to be paid to the Plaintiff after confirmation of receipt of the cargo.

5.3. according to the Plaintiff after shipping the cargo, Defendant No.2 informed the Plaintiff that the shipment was scheduled for re-export and returned back to India. Plaintiff had requested the Defendant No.2 to modify the details of the consignee in order to complete the delivery but Defendant No.2 did not respond and returned the shipment to India. Thereafter Defendant No.2 re- exported the two containers separately for which two Container Freight Stations (CFS) were assigned. Thereafter Defendant No.2 issued a fresh of Bill of Lading dated 16.02.2021 and Non Negotiable Way-bill dated 10.02.2021 for the same shipment. Defendant No.2 did not inform the Plaintiff about return of the cargo due to which after the free detention period was over, demurrages charges, detention charges and other charges became applicable on day to day basis.

5.4. In april 2021, Plaintiff came to know about the aforementioned cargo having returned back and unloaded and for which charges became applicable on day to day basis. Plaintiff sought 100% waiver on detention and demurrages charges / ground rent etc. from Defendant No.2 whereas Defendant No.2 proposed a 50% waiver.

5.5. In September 2021, Plaintiff learnt that the cargo was unilaterally auctioned to a third party without giving notice to the Plaintiff.

5.6. Thereafter Defendant No.2 by email date